This book makes a significant contribution to the literature on mothers’ movements. It also makes a significant contribution to what is often called “work–life” balance debates, or how women balance their sequential or simultaneous commitments to paid employment and the reproductive labor of caring for children. For Mothers Unite! Jocelyn Elise Crowley conducted research with five mothers’ groups, each animated by different orientations and philosophies: Mocha Moms (stay-at-home mothers of color); mothers of preschoolers, or MOPS (stay-at-home mothers grounded in Christian values); MomsRising (a virtual group focused on social policy); Mothers & More (focused on women’s identities as mothers and as employees); and the National Association of Mothers’ Centers, or NAMC (local women’s centers serving social and support functions). Crowley includes a comparison group of nonaffiliated mothers. Relying on survey data supplemented with interviews and observations, she probed women’s beliefs about workplace flexibility and organizing goals related to workplace flexibility that might unite these diverse groups.

Crowley’s descriptions of the groups and women’s motivations provide a fascinating window onto women’s perceptions of mothering. Respondents cite benefits of membership as affirmation of their individual mothering decisions, knowledge from like-minded (and sometimes not like-minded) nonjudgmental peers, and a sense of solidarity. The author’s research gives lie to the so-called Mommy Wars that portray resentful, jealous, and judgmental mothers pitted against one another. Her respondents were largely empathic, understanding, and supportive of those whose choices they themselves did not validate or embrace. In addition to challenging narratives, these data would also support a more critical theoretical analysis that could better connect the media framing of the Mommy Wars with Crowley’s discussion of the potential for a social movement for workplace flexibility for parents. The deeply political nature of media frames portraying women’s (individual) choices as a war between “mommies” to the exclusion of existing U.S. structural, economic, and political arrangements (see, e.g., Kim Akass, “Motherhood and Myth-Making: Dispatches from the Frontline of the US Mommy Wars,” Feminist Media Studies 12:1 [2011]: 137–41) remains underexplored. Crowley discusses the potential of a social movement, but does not offer much detail about the political and economic framework within which it would take place.

One set of theories through which to explore the promise and pitfalls of a broad-based movement for workplace flexibility is maternalist political discourse. Uniting mothers can be effective in garnering solidarity and has strong moral appeal. However, maternalist solidarity may also undermine mothers as rational political actors and unnecessarily alienate potential allies who are not mothers, such as fathers, employers, and anyone who values interdependency. Crowley’s book raises the possibility that we perhaps too easily give up or become mired in strategic trade-offs. Any movement must begin with hope, which may require some measure of suspended critique. This is where the lack of strategic second-guessing, which might otherwise seem naive, is refreshing and potentially necessary. Professional advocates have made headway but have failed to ignite a movement, perhaps because there is not enough of a demand on the ground (Elizabeth Palley and Corey S. Shdaimah, In Our Hands: The Struggle for U.S. Child Care Policy, 2014). Crowley’s data provide evidence that expending further efforts among women who support and relate to each other as mothers might bear political fruit.

Critical insights offered by theorists, however, might enrich Crowley’s analysis of the data by situating it within the larger, more complicated political context. One such opportunity is provided by 28-year-old MomsRising member Tiffany, who explains that her job satisfaction stemming from workplace flexibility is a valuable benefit to her employer: “She indicated that she was willing to accept a lower wage in exchange for favorable work-related options, and if her feelings were indicative of those of other mothers, employers could be gaining financially as well as providing flexibility” (p. 121). Billing this as a financial incentive makes good sense in expanding workplace-flexibility appeal to business and other potential allies. As a commentary on public policy, on the other hand, a deeper examination of the reasons this particular carrot has appeal and of the political and economic interests that reap benefits and bear burdens is warranted.

Crowley’s work complements the work of scholars who have explored how and why people (do not) transform their understanding of private care troubles into public problems (see Sandra R., Levitsky, Caring for Our Own: Why There Is No Political Demand for New American Social Welfare Rights, 2014) and the social, political, and economic factors that impede coalescence of U.S. social movements (see Doug Imig, “Building a Social Movement for America’s Children, “ Journal of Children and Poverty 12:1 [2006]: 1–37, on child-care policy). Drawing on insights about the ways in which activists and social movements contest political framing, is there a symbolic framing that would be acceptable to Crowley’s politically diverse group of women? Could this group of diverse mothers’ organizations and its mother-members join together to move from passive support for sharing information about workplace flexibility to political engagement? Would certain framing, such as family values, care work, or workplace responsibility, push some groups away as it draws others in? Where is the balance between retrenching existing arrangements and paving new ground? For groups that are not represented among the author’s sample, such as low-income parents, how likely are they to be affected by new alliances and a focus on workplace flexibility?

Crowley discovers common ground among otherwise unlikely allies. The overwhelming majority of her 3,327 survey respondents, whether or not they are employed outside of their own homes, support a government role in (gently) encouraging workplace flexibility. This is an admittedly narrow area of agreement. It does not include, for example, even the modest UK requirement that employers hear (not grant) flexible workplace requests (p. 181). However, Crowley argues that this threshold contains the seeds of a mothers’ movement for workplace and government policy changes to expand mothers’ choices and benefit families. At a time of contentious politics where all compromise is viewed with suspicion, the prospect of solidarity to help mothers, and by extension their partners, care for children is no small source of hope. She provides evidence of national leadership in First Lady Michelle Obama’s public recounting of her own personal trials and in the White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility.

Many of Crowley’s respondents have begun to classify workplace struggles caused by lack of flexibility as something larger than a private trouble, which is a formative stage in the social construction of a public problem in the tradition of Herbert Blumer (“Social Problems as Collective Behavior,” Social Problems 18 [Winter 1971]: 298–306). The author’s prescriptions for movement building include more inclusive organizational membership bases, marketing workplace flexibility to rank and file members, and coalition building. The conundrum of any incipient social movement is that mobilization both require and presuppose recognition of a shared vision of goals. The additional value of Mothers Unite! is that it holds up a mirror to the five women’s groups and to mothers and their allies across the country, which furthers what Crowley describes as the crucial external identity work of “cementing [members’] attachments to the movement overall” (p. 189) that will be necessary for the creation and sustenance of a movement for workplace flexibility.